Did You Know...

I’ll send you through Allah’s writeup. Like hell I’ll link these worthless blackhearted anti-American ass-grommets. Here’s their justification for revealing, despite pleading by the government, the name of the man who–without torture, without heavy-handed tactics, extracted a confession from Khaled Sheikh Mohammed.

The Central Intelligence Agency asked The New York Times not to publish the name of [hero], an interrogator who questioned Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other high-level Al Qaeda prisoners, saying that to identify Mr. M—– would invade his privacy and put him at risk of retaliation from terrorists or harassment from critics of the agency.

After discussion with agency officials and a lawyer for Mr. M——, the newspaper declined the request, noting that Mr. M——had never worked under cover and that others involved in the campaign against Al Qaeda have been named in news stories and books. The editors judged that the name was necessary for the credibility and completeness of the article.

The Times’s policy is to withhold the name of a news subject only very rarely, most often in the case of victims of sexual assault or intelligence officers operating under cover.

Mr. M——, a career analyst at the agency until his retirement a few years ago, did not directly participate in waterboarding or other harsh interrogation methods that critics describe as torture and, in fact, turned down an offer to be trained in such tactics.

The newspaper seriously considered the requests from Mr. M——- and the agency. But in view of the experience of other government employees who have been named publicly in books and published articles or who have themselves chosen to go public, the newspaper made the decision to print the name.

That’s not even a justification. It’s just “so we decided to do it”. Now this guy gets rewarded by the Times for doing his job, and subjected to the full Cully Stimson/John Yoo treatment–lawsuits, hounding, stalkers. That’s at best; what if Al Qaeda decides to pay him a visit?

Damnable free-riders. They live and prosper under the blanket of security provided by men like this, and they expose him–unnecessarily, as Allah notes–to enhance the credibility of their story. What is the incentive to undertake any kind of dangerous or unpleasant job for the country if the Times is going to out you on a whim?

Are there any consequences for their decision? Does the outing of people who undertake hazardous duty for their country–again— prick anyone’s conscience? Anyone at the Times want to resign, or maybe just dissent from this decision?

Anyone?

Back in 2006, Michelle was peeved at the Times for their propensity to leak national security secrets; here’s her report on a protest she helped organize in front of the NY Times’ DC office. I like this placard:

It’s more appropriate than ever, and so is the following parody that I wrote back then:

__________

U.S. Soldier spying on bin Laden

NY Times Special Report

By B. Arnold

WAZIRISTAN—An American soldier, clinging to a cliff face littered with broken shale and animal bones in Waziristan, northwest Pakistan, is currently engaging in direct, unwarranted surveillance of Osama bin Laden, confidential sources have revealed to the New York Times.

The soldier’s conduct raises questions about the Bush administration’s policy of covert surveillance and intelligence gathering in support of his “War on Terror”. Constitutional experts are “troubled” by this and similar unwarranted searches that are designed to gather information on terrorists, but may reveal private information about American citizens instead.

“If there were an American citizen down there sunbathing in that Waziristan village next door to where bin Laden is conferring with his top lieutenants, then the Defense Department would now be passing around her photos,” said Cass Sunstein, a law professor.

Mr. bin Laden, who could not be reached for this interview, is a Saudi-born spiritual leader who, some say, was connected with the attacks on the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. The attack killed nearly 3000 people, many of them women and minorities. He is currently meeting with twelve lieutenants to discuss a worldwide spiritual initiative set to take place in Jakarta, Addis Ababa, Melbourne, and Houston, Texas on July 11th.

Observing the heavily guarded meeting from about fifty yards away is Lt. Thomas “Turk” Dobrovsky, of Houston. Crouched in a camouflaged “ghillie suit”, Dobrovsky adjusted a concealed antenna in an effort to record snatches of Arabic conversation in the mud meeting hall below. He is partially concealed by a rock outcropping, the one with the two scraggly bushes, but is awkwardly positioned and unable to defend himself. A burst of AK fire or an RPG from the guards below could kill him easily.

When contacted by a New York Times reporter, Lt. Dobrovsky became agitated and waved us away, and made a threatening motion by drawing his finger across his throat. In a climate of jingoism whipped up by talk radio and right-wing internet sites, such threats are not unusual. This is not the first time that journalists have been threatened by American soldiers eager to prosecute the War on Terror (see Editorial, “Trigger Happy Psychos who Hate the Free Press and the Constitution”, p.A-19.)

As the Times reporter filed his story, however, Lieutenant Dobrovsky pled with us not to reveal his position, whispering that he had a wife and child back home that could be destroyed “in a Houston chemical weapons attack” by Mr. bin Laden’s organization. He could not produce a search warrant and did not know whether there were any American citizens in the meeting, but said that if there were, he “hoped they got what’s coming to them.”

His wife, Helen Dobrovsky, refused to speak with Times reporters when contacted at her workplace, Reliable Carpet Service, at 456 W. Poplar Ave. in Houston. The dark-haired Ms. Dobrovsky (see picture at left) works as a receptionist at the front desk. We contacted her at her home, the only house with a white picket fence on Gladiolus Circle in Conroe, Tx, but she again refused to speak with the Times. Leaning on her green Honda Accord, with the Texas license plate number THX-9509, she directed a stream of obscenities at our reporter, calling him a “miserable traitor”, and a “murdering un-American bastard” who ought to be “thrown in a cell with a bunch of Al Qaeda butchers to see if they really will kill you last, you f—-ing traitor.”

Lt. Dobrovsky’s daughter was no more forthcoming. When contacted at Houston’s KinderCare pre-school, Haley Dobrovsky, 4, (see picture) refused to address the constitutional issues presented by her father’s surveillance, stating only that her “Daddy is very brave.” Haley, who is blond and carries a distinctive red Hello Kitty backpack, was then whisked away by the pre-school’s unarmed security officer, who asked our reporter to leave.

Back in Waziristan, a goat wanders through the village near where bin Laden camps. Like bin Laden, the goat is currently unaware that three F-16s have just taken off from Bagram AFB in Afghanistan, in response to an emergency radio call placed by Lt. Dobrovsky, who was angered about Times reporting of his illegal activities. While the Times reporter is safely out of the way, Lt. Dobrovsky remains behind to maintain a laser dot on the hut to guide the bombs to their target, and will likely be killed when the bombs strike.

If Mr. bin Laden has the New York Times web edition on his RSS feed, however, he will know that he has twelve minutes to finish his meeting, shoot Lt. Dobrovsky, and disappear before the aircraft are within strike range.

Times correspondents in Houston, Tehran, Pyongyang, and Damascus contributed to this report.